National Republican., 1887-04-28
STRONG CONTRADICTIONS
SHOWN IN THE TESTIMONY IN THE
ANGNEY CASE.
Backing Up tho Reputation OF WITT
nesses-Mrs. Angney Displays Tenn
por on tho Stand = wiimot Never
Owed Her Cent at ANY Time.

buulb IO XIII, anu Ine lnulCaJlOnb hTe tlub
the present week will be nearits close when
the jury receives the case for their consld-
Grafton. The hearing has occupied consld-
cradle more time than was anticipated when
the trial was entered upon, and 1t has now
reached that stage when IL cannot be ex-
pedited. When the court opened yesterday
morning the government resumed the CIV
ing OF Its rebuttal testimony, and with the
exception Of little sandwiching Of evil
dence on the part Of the defense, occupied
the entire day.
Edwin +. Droop was the first witness
called 70 prove the reputation Of Turnbull
cutionfelt called upon to do on the ground
that 1t had been attacked by witnesses from
Paterson, N. j.
Objection was made to the introduction
Of the evidence by the defense, they claim
ing that the mans reputation at that time
might not have been the same as in 1889.
District Attorney Worthington claimed
attacked the reputation Of Turnbull, and III
he bad such reputation in 1874 he wished
to show that reformation had taken place.
The court decided to overrule the objec-
tiop.
Mr.. Droop stated that Turnbulrs reputa.
tion had been good ever since he knew the
man, which was about eighteen years. He
and the witness saw him often.
Frank A. Butte, chief Of division in the
pension office; Rev. Benjamin Swallow,
clerk In the Treasury Department, and w.
II. Hoover, merchant, also testified to the
good reputation of the party.
DIR. Daniel b. Steel, Edwin Wamsley,
Horace p. Springer, Charles O. Duncanson,
Jacob Bool, and F. Q. Cate testified that
Wilmot's reputation for peace and good
order was good.
George Young, ir., of Columbia, Pa,
formerly justice or the peace, was per-
mitted to be examined by the defense out
OF The regular order. lie stated that he
issued the papers in the case of the Com
monwealth VS.. Angney for desertion of his
wife, and produced the documents. These
was made by Mrs. Angney on Nov. II,
1852. The hearing took place the sams
day, and he dismissed the defendant.
On cross examination the witness said
that Mrs. Angney came alone to make her
complaint. He had no recollection of Mr..
Wilmot ever having been In his office.
The government resumed its rebuttal.
Lewis Stebhauer, OF Clermont, Mexican
county, Pa, testified that he was justice
Of the peace In 1882, and saw Angney in
his Office In July Of that year.
"Did you at that time perform marriage
ceremony between him and Mary Gilmore?"
asked the district attorney.
The defense objected to the testimony,
and the court sustained 1t.
ID. X. Hinkle, proprietor Of the hotel at
Columbia, Pa. testified that he knew of no
difficulty between Angney and Wilmot at
his hotel in August, 1877. He also stated
that Wilmot's reputation while he lived at
that place was good.
John Lockhart, of Columbia; Pa, and
Others from that place, gave testimony as
to the good reputation Wilmot enjoyed
while living In that town.
Mrs. Sallie Angney was recalled, and
asked In regard to signing the agreement
for a separation from. her husband.
Objection was raised by the defense to
the admission of the evidence on the
ground Of the relations between husband
and wife being confidential.
District Attorney Worthington cited the
ruling in the Guiteau case, where the di-
yorced wife was permitted to testify, and
which said that conversations taking place
between the parties when other persons
were present were not confidential and
could be testified TO by the wife.
Judge Chapman thought 1t remarkable
decision and failed to find where the opn.
ion cited a single authority supporting the
position taken.
His honor decided to admit the testi.
mony.
Mrs. Angney said that the paper was
signed at Chambersburg agreeing TO sep
aration for one year. Mr.. Angney, Mr..
Wilmot, lawyer or squire, were present
at the time. "Mr. Wilmot," she said, "had
nothing to do with 1t. 1t was me that did
1t ALL"
The witness then spoke of the scene at
the dinner table and denied the testimony
Of Angney as to what took place at that
time.
The letter from Mr.. Wllmot to Jonas
Note, written In October, 1882, was shown to
the witness, and she denied ever having
seen II or getting IL from Mr.. Note. This
testimony was objected to and ordered to
be struck out.
Mrs. Angney, speaking OF her first visit
| to this city, said that she came here in 1879,
remained with her sister some five or six
weeks, and was not detained either by Mr..
| or Mrs. Wilmot. The next time she came
| she remained some weeks; she was COM
| PEELED to remain; she had nowhere else to
| go, ''as my man robbed me out Of every.
thing" she sharply added.
She said that she had no knowledge OF
either Mr.. or Mrs. Wilmot intercepting any
| Of her letters.
| The government announced that II had
but one more witness to examine In rebut-
tai and he would be here this morning.
| Mrs. Angney was called back to the stand
| for further cross. examination by the de-
feDse. She said that she knew James Il.
Slade, Of Columbia, Pa, but denied that,
in January, 1882, she told him that all her
misfortunes IN life came through Jno. IL.
Wilmot, and said that in fact no such CON
versation took place. She knew Slade only
by sight and never had conversation with
him about anything. She admitted receIv
ing letters, while In Columbia, under the
name Of Mollie Fisher, and concealed them
from her husband on her own account.
In response to the questioning OF the
district attorney she said that Wilmot did
not write 10 her and direct the letters In
the Name OF Mollic Fisher, but II was her
sister who did II. She wrote under an as.
sumed name so that the letters would reach
those ITO whom they were sent. "This
man, speaking with much feeling, "had
taken away the last thing that | had, aud
waited them to come and protect me.n
O1 recross.examination she admitted
giving an order TO Mr.. Beall (attorney fol
Anghey) after the shooting, on Wilmot u
cash, which was a balance OF general ex
pentes ON the furniture.
| Id reply 10 Mr.. worthlngton's question:
sheeald that Mr.. Wilmot never owed her q
dollar The ring was one that she gave Ia
her sister as security for $500 which hel
husband received, She said that she signed
tlb letter Of January, 1888, through force
frkm her husband, who had her by the
shbulders aud was holding her down at the
| time.
| Mr.. WilmOt was recalled and shown th,
letter contained In the envelope addressed
toA Mollie Fisher. lie admitted that IN,
letter was In his handwriting, but denied
eyer sending letter 10 Mrs. Angney
add addressing II "Mollie Fisher" III,
s9id the envelope was addressed for hi
Wife, who was writing 10 her sister, aud
that his letter was sent In another envelope
10 Mrs. Angney.
The letter was read and proved to be IL
regard TO the plano, which Mr.. Wilmo
stated that they had no use for, but would
be kept cafe for Mrs. Augney.
AT this point the court adjourned for th,
day.